Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Picture not showing up right?

Willy Aybar §71.52.101.107 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. In future, you'd do better to use the Wikipedia:Help desk to report such issues - this isn't the appropriate place, and it may get missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

This policy currently cautions against mentioning that some relatively unknown person is accused of a crime, when he has not yet been convicted. This mirrors the Sub judice practice limiting media coverage of accused criminals in parts of the British Commonwealth, for instance, but it has not previously been and does not seem to be currently the actual practice in Wikipedia. In the case of the kidnappings of three young women in Cincinnatti, in the first day after their rescue the Wikipedia article in 2013 mentioned the name of the owner of the house, Ariel Castro, and said he had been arrested. He ultimately confessed to the kidnappings. By saying he had been arrested after the kidnap victims escaped his house, wasn't the article violating the present language of this policy, since saying he was arrested carries the automatic implication that he is "accused." When such a notable crime occurs in the future, must we wait to name the arrested, indicted, and tried person until there is a "guilty" verdict? In a kidnapping, a murder, a rape, a well publicized assault like the Alexian Lien beating a terrorist attack or the arrest of an accused terrorist like the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, an assasination attempt on a well known public figure, or an alleged espionage or treason case such as that of Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, it has been the actual practice to have an article on the alleged crime, and to include facts about the crime from reliable sources, as well as reports from reliable sources that someone had been arrested, or that he had been charged in court, or that he was being tried. In the past, I would remove editor's opinions from such articles, such as an editor calling the accused "the murderer," "the rapist," or whatever, in favor of factually stating that "he was arrested," "he was indicted," "he is being tried for" the crime. Obviously an arrest is not a conviction, as in the instance of Castro's family members who were arrested and later exonerated, But I am concerned Wikipedia will look silly when readers come here for objective and thorough coverage of some highly notable crime, and we somehow bury our heads in the sand and pretend not to know that an arrest has been made or that a trial is taking place, until years later (in some cases) when the trial has been completed. Are we supposed to just say "A person was arrested and indicted??" I suggest that this policy be modified to allow the actual level of coverage which has been typical in Wikipedia crime articles, or at least to clearly state that articles about notable crimes can mention the name of the person arrested or on trial, with reference to reliable news sources, while avoiding hysterical denunciations or "trial by media" which prosecutors are fond of. Edison (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is presently being claimed at WP:AFD that this policy outlaws having an article about an accused non-notable person (and presumably the mention of his name in an article about the crime) for however many years it takes from discovery of the crime and an arrest, until a conviction, with assurances that once there is a conviction, the article can be undeleted or recreated. Others say this policy just creates a high bar for such naming, but that when there is sufficient news coverage, the privacy is already destroyed and the bell cannot be unrung by coyness here at Wikipedia. Is it permissible to say "Yes, we gave it consideration, and concluded that in this instance subjudice or privacy does not preclude an article naming the person." There seems to be a flaw in the notion of "waitng for conviction" before naming the accused, since some otherwise non-notable acquitted persons and their trials or alleged crimes continue to have articles, such as George Zimmerman and State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. We even have numerous categories of articles about persons who were acquitted for various crimes, and many such persons are nonnotable save for the crime they were never acquitted of, like Zimmerman or Casey Anthony. Edison (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is this discussion re WP:AFD taking place? It isn't at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to point to a specific AFD for fear of canvassing. But the citing of this policy at an AFD led me here with the question as to whether it is correct to claim that WP:BLPCRIME in general calls for not mentioning the accused until he is convicted. I have no problem with saying that we should not do it in every case of some little-known person committing a crime, but in notable crimes it would make for odd articles when the arrested and indicted person is never mentioned by name. Edison (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We should take care in using names -- vide the "Olympic bomber" who won suits in court ... better to be "notnews" than to defame people as a rule. Collect (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Bomber leads to Eric Rudolph. Do you propose we should delete that redirect? You likely are thinking about Richard Jewell who was falsely accused. Richard Ricci was similarly falsely accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart, and his name and exoneration are in the article Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. The article Brandon Mayfield covers a lawyer who was falsely linked by flawed FBI fingerprint analysis to the 2004 Madrid train bombings.The article Steven Hatfill is about an otherwise nonnotable scientists who suffered a "trial by media" and whose apartment the FBI searched, before he was exonerated of any participation in the 2001 anthrax attacks. If someone was falsely accused of a notable crime, and those accusations and then the exoneration received significant coverage in multiple reliable new sources, it seems appropriate to report those facts. It is not "defaming people" to report that there was an horrific crime which was covered by well-regarded news media worldwide, and that someone was arrested and is being tried for that crime. It is not defamation to have an encyclopedic account of the false accusation which was refuted. It seems quite contrary to Wikipedia's actual practice that we should not mention the name of the Bostom Marathon bomber until and unless he is convicted, when he has been arrested for and indicted for a notable crime. Readers expect us to have an article about notable crimes, and that the article should identify anyone arrested for it or widely accused in the media and exonerated, like Jewell, Ricci, Mayfield, and Hatfill. Note also List of exonerated death row inmates. Policies are supposed to reflect "best practices" and thus to reflect reality and actual practice in Wikipedia, i.e the consensus of the community of editors, of which AFD is an important index, and not to just reflect the views of a few editors who gravitate to talk pages of policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue?

User:Coretheapple has removed mention of actors being awarded Golden Raspberry Awards from several pages recently, including Mare Winningham, John Travolta, Adam Sandler, and List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler claiming that there is a BLP issue with including them. He and I have been discussing the matter at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler and so I am bringing the question here to ask others to comment on the specific claim that there is a BLP problem with including mention of Razzies on Wikipedia.

Coretheapple claims that because the Razzies "are intended to mock and degrade the recipient" they are a problem and "Under WP:BLP, such content needs to be reliably sourced. That is, we need some kind of reference to it in a newspaper or magazine article, independent of the award administrators." I have replied that the Razzies official website is sufficient to provide a reliable source that they actually did give the awards in question and the fact that is there a Wikipedia page for Golden Raspberry Awards shows they have been deemed to be notable enough for inclusion, so there is no BLP issue with saying that, for example, Adam Sandler was given a Razzie for Worst Actor and only using the official Razzie site as a source.

Furthermore, when I pointed out that Wikipedia also has separate pages for Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay, and several other Razzie pages, all with just the Razzie official site as a source for the names they list, Coretheapple indicated that these pages were also problematic for BLP reasons.

So my questions for other editors are: (1) Does it raise a BLP problem to include information on Wikipedia about people who have been given Razzie awards? and (2) Does mentioning Razzie awards on Wikipedia pages require sourcing independent of the Razzie website because of BLP concerns? 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Well it has been discussed in the past on Wikiproject Films and the consensus is that it requires independent sourcing, but I'd welcome input here. The Sandler list article presents a special problem as he he has gotten a ton of "razzies" and they dominate this list. It kind of shifts the POV of the article to "he's a crappy actor," and I think that's problematic without sourcing apart from the Razzie website. Also it's not really an "award" so I question it being there even with sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with independent sourcing, because otherwise the noteworthiness of the award in question is unclear. I don't think this applies especially to the Razzies or "anti-awards" in general, but to any award (or, if I'm wrong about that, then it shouldn't apply to the Razzies). Formerip (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with independent sourcing in general, but I would also expect (without having done the legwork to prove it) that there would be reliable, secondary coverage of each year's Raazies. Putting due weight to it, if that's the case, is more an editorial process than a sourcing one. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto what I wrote below for you. WP:UNDUE is not the same as BLP. Your comment says nothing about whether or not there is a BLP issue with the Razzies. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

(edit conflict) You have both ignored the questions I have asked. Coretheapple, the discussions on Wikiproject Films have not been about the question of BLP. The issue of BLP was not raised there by anyone, so I am asing that here. There is no concensus at Wikiproject Films that there is a BLP issue because it has not been discussed there. FormerIP, you might question the notability of the awards, but that is not a BLP matter. So if you want independent sourcing for notability issues (although surely you mean WP:UNDUE, since clear notability is very easy to establish), that is a very different discussion. You have not said anything about there being a BLP problem. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

You're wrong. There would definitely be a BLP issue with mentioning any unnoteworthy events (awards being just one example) in a biography. On the other hand, if an award can be established as noteworthy, there is appropriate sourcing and there is no issue of UNDUE (UNDUE is incorporated into BLP policy), no BLP issue arises just because the subject of the biography might be caused embarrassment. That's not what BLP policy is there for. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that there are multiple Wikipedia pages for the Razzies show that the notability of these awards has been established? If not, then how can these pages be allowed to exist? If so, then how can the notability of the awards be a BLP issue? 99.192.79.171 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

What matters is not the notability of the awards, but the noteworthiness of a particular person receiving an award, even if the two things may not be completely unrelated. The noteworthiness of the awards may have changed over time, some individual statues may be more noteworthy than others and the significance of the award may be relative depending on who has received it. It's a talkpage discussion for individual cases, and should be based on sourcing. Sparing the article subject from embarrassment should not be a consideration, though. Formerip (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying that "the noteworthiness of a particular person receiving an award" matters. If the person who won a Razzie is highly noteworthy (like Adam Sandler) does that make it more or less of a BLP issue than if the person who won it is less noteworthy? It seems to me that the WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE section of BLP makes it clear that more care should be taken with less noteworthy people, but the Razzies almost exclusively go to public figures like Sandler. So if anything, the issue of relative noteworthiness suggests that Razzie winners not BLP problems because they are all public figures. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Agree that independent sourcing is required. If a particular noteworthy person receives a particular noteworthy award, but nobody cares (i.e. no independent sources write about it), then the giving of the award to that particular person is not noteworthy. To answer your questions: (1) no, writing about a subject being awarded a Razzie does not violate BLP as long as it is properly sourced; and (2) yes, an independent source is required, because the Razzies can give an award to literally anybody, so notability of a particular award can only be established by independent coverage. As for Adam Sandler, if he's received more anti-awards than actual awards, it's POV to say otherwise. Ivanvector (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple argues that the extensive Razzies section overbalances the Sandler article, making it seem as if he is a crappy actor, but I think such a section accurately indicates that such opinions are widely held.[1] As far as Razzie references go, I agree that a Razzie sentence or paragraph should be supported by at least one WP:SECONDARY source. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those wanting to see reliable unrelated source coverage of such an award. I can give out the "You Suck Award" to people I don't like right now, but if nobody else cares (which no one would), "John Doe was given the You Suck Award in 2014" is UNDUE. Did reliable sources actually take note in this particular instance? That's the question that will answer whether it's a BLP problem or a perfectly acceptable note about the person's career. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources are the key. For example, for Sandler: [2], [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will kind of speak on the IP's behalf. The 'you suck award' no one's ever heard of so that's easy. If it were agreed that the razzies are generally of import, than their website would be fine for who they were given to. Unfortunately, for the IP's claim, there does not appear to be that agreement. So, IP unless you can come up with a bunch of independent sources to get a consensus to agree that virtually all razzies are important enough, then you need to independently source them separately. I also agree that if they are of import, than it slant's pov not to include them. Moreover, this discussion really belongs on the WP:BLPN notice board, where we attempt to record this kind of consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that's true, actually, and people searching for this discussion on that noticeboard are not going to find it. I wonder if it can be moved or (when completed) copied over there? At the very least, a pointer to this discussion belongs on that board. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've just tagged a bunch of razzie pages as needing better sourcing (which they undoubtedly do). On the Sandler issue, I don't see this as being a problem, (a) because this isn't his biography page it's List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler and explicitly showing only one aspect of his life and (b) it's a more-or-less in line of both public opinion and professional reviewer's opinions. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of final comments for this discussion. First, it does seem that there are a number of people who think that independent sourcing for particular awards is needed, although I still don't understand why. As Betty Logan commented on WT:FILM, "I don't think the Razzies are any more a BLP issue than say a bad review". To expand on that, the Razzies are notable awards (they have several Wikipedia pages and have significant media coverage annually), so if they say that Adam Sandler gave the worst performance of the year that seems to be the same as if a review in the New York Times or USA Today or any other notable source writes in a review that Adam Sandler gave the worst performance of the year. With a review from a notable source we never need a secondary source that references that review to make it eligible for inclusion, so the same should be true for the Razzies. I really don't see why others think there is a difference. Putting in an article a claim that Sandler gave the worst performance without any citation is clearly a BLP problem and putting in such a claim with a cited source that in not a notable one (like some random dude's personal blog) is also clearly a BLP problem, but when the source is notable as the Razzies, NYTimes, and USA Today all are, it seems strange to say two of those need no back-up independent sourcing but one does.

Second, about the location of this discussion, if this really belongs on the WP:BLPN notice board or somewhere else, I have no objection to it being moved or copied or linked to or whatever. I had thought this was the right location, but I defer to those who know more about that. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Similarly, I don't understand why you can't see that writing about an organization's activities using the organization as the only source is inherently problematic. The Razzies have a commercial interest in publicizing their own awards. As you said they have significant media coverage, so a notable award should be very easy to source independently, otherwise the notability of that award is suspect. There's a difference between an expert reviewer criticizing an actor's performance, and an organization with an interest in producing bad reviews calling someone the worst performer of the year. There had better be an independent source to back up that superlative. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Substitute "Oscars" or "Emmys" where you put "Razzies" above and all the same things are true, yet no source independent of those organizations is needed for claims that people won their awards, even the more obscure ones that don't make the televised broadcasts or get any media coverage. The notability of all three awards in general is not in question, which is why none of the the Wikipedia pages for them are having their existence challenged. The primary source in all cases is the most authoritative source for whether or not a person won a particular award. So again, there is no difference. If the difference that matters is that the Razzies say something negative while the others say something positive, then my previous comment about a NYTimes or USA Today review applies. Either way, the sourcing requirement you suggest is neither the same as for other notable awards nor is it the same for other negative opinions expressed by notable sources. In both of those cases no independent sourcing is required. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)